2007-02-07 04:00:00 PDT Washington -- With the Senate's debate on an Iraq war resolution mired in partisan deadlock, House Democratic leaders pledged Tuesday that next week they would push to a vote a similar measure opposing President Bush's decision to send more American troops into the conflict.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said the wording of the House resolution hasn't been determined, but it will be patterned after the bipartisan, nonbinding measure authored in the Senate by Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich.

Democratic leaders are considering the unusual step of holding a joint meeting of the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees later this week to debate their resolution before sending it to the full House. And they plan to invite Warner and Levin to appear before the joint hearing.

Hoyer stressed that he hopes whatever resolution comes to the House floor will draw bipartisan support.

The Warner-Levin resolution, which the White House is lobbying against, states that the Senate "disagrees" with Bush's plan to increase U.S. combat troop levels by 21,500 in Iraq. But it also endorses the president's view that U.S. national security depends upon a self-governing Iraq, lists military objections and conditions future American support on benchmarks that must be met by the Iraqis.

The Senate remained stuck Tuesday, with furious Democrats lashing out at Republicans after GOP leaders Monday blocked the beginning of debate on the Warner-Levin resolution.

Republicans insisted that Democrats allow a resolution by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that supports Bush's troop increase and a measure by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., which says Congress should refrain from any action -- including cutting funding -- that harms the troops in the field.

"This is all a game to divert attention from what we have before us now and the issue the American people want us to address," Reid said, "whether there should be a surge, an escalation, an augmentation of the already disastrous war that's taking place in Iraq, with 3,100 dead, 24,000 wounded, a third of those hurt very badly."

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Republicans want to debate the war, which he called the most important issue facing the country.

The Senate has "no higher duty than to express ourselves openly and honestly, to take a stand," McConnell said, including whether to "fund or not fund a war. That's it, and this is what Republicans are insisting upon, to express ourselves on the question to fund or not fund the war in Iraq."

With Senate Democrats holding a one-vote majority that makes it uncertain if the Warner-Levin measure will ever come to the floor, House Democrats decided to act.

"We haven't had full debate on the president's policy since the first resolution" in October 2002 that authorized Bush to use force in Iraq, said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., the House Democratic Caucus chairman.

"This is a warranted debate that's long overdue," he added.

The rules governing the House and Senate put the parties in different positions despite Democratic majorities in both houses. In the House, Democrats control the agenda as the majority party with a 16-seat edge.

In the Senate, however, the minority party has stronger procedural rights and can force the majority to gain 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and move an issue to a final vote.

Hoyer said the House Democratic leadership will allow Republicans to offer an alternative war resolution, but wouldn't commit to whether the planned three-day House debate will be open to any of the myriad of proposals on Iraq that have been introduced by lawmakers of both parties.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said Republicans haven't yet been told by the majority if they will be allowed to offer their own proposal. He said the fact that whatever resolution the Democrats offer won't be open for amendments shows the planned debate is about scoring political points.

"It's important enough to debate for three days but not important enough to debate all the ideas that are out there," Blunt said.

Republicans led by Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, have proposed a bipartisan House task force that would monitor the Iraqi government's progress toward milestones to ensure continued U.S. support. However, the proposal doesn't spell out any sanctions if the Iraqis don't perform.

Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., chairman of the House Republican Conference, said the nonbinding resolutions are weak pieces of "gamesmanship" that send a mixed message.

"If you're not cutting off the funds for the troops in the field, then you are supporting the commander in chief's policy," Putnam said. "This gamesmanship sends the wrong message to our troops, and it is trying to have it both ways."

"Mr. Lantos is vocal and insistent in his opposition to the president's so-called surge plan and he would like to see a very strong resolution that conveys this message in a way the White House cannot ignore," said his spokeswoman, Lynne Weil.

Hoyer said it is impractical for the House to hold a wide-open debate on the war resolution. "We would be here for a very long time, considering hundreds of amendments. You have to have some rules in a body of 435," he said.

Emanuel said he views the nonbinding resolution as the first of several steps the Democratic House will take to oppose the Iraq war. Further steps could include attaching conditions to spending bills for military operations.

Despite the Senate's stalemate, Democrats have managed since taking control of Congress to push the Iraq war debate rapidly in their direction through relentless hearings scrutinizing Bush's war strategy and calling top administration officials to task. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace testified again Tuesday, revealing that there is scant progress on the other vital elements of Bush's new plan -- economic aid and Iraqi troop efforts -- that White House officials have said are vital.

And lawmakers continued to offer their own proposals on the war.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat set to formally announce his candidacy for president this weekend, laid out his plan Tuesday for a gradual troop withdrawal that would begin May 1.

Teaming with two House war veterans, Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, a Vietnam War veteran, and Rep. Patrick Murphy, a newly elected Democrat and Iraq war veteran from Pennsylvania, Obama's measure would apply the force of law to Bush unlike the nonbinding resolution stalled in the Senate. It would try to prevent the troop increase by capping troop levels at their level on Jan. 10, when Bush announced his plan. Withdrawals would begin in May with the goal of removing all combat brigades by March 2008, allowing a "residual U.S. presence" for force protection, training of Iraqi forces and hunting terrorists.

Thompson acknowledged the impatience his constituents have with the slow pace of Congress.

"The American people are insisting we do something," he said. "People are really looking for change. People are saying do it right now, and it's hard for them to understand why after we just had an election we can't do this."